Negligence - Knowledge

1155:, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained. Although the notion sounds simple, the causation between one's breach of duty and the harm that results to another can at times be very complicated. The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred 'but for', or without, the accused party's breach of the duty owed to the injured party. In Australia, the High Court has held that the 'but for' test is not the exclusive test of causation because it cannot address a situation where there is more than one cause of damage. When 'but for' test is not satisfied and the case is an exceptional one, a commonsense test ('Whether and Why' test) will be applied Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increases the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused. 1366:". The test is self-explanatory: would a reasonable person (as determined by a judge or jury), under the given circumstances, have done what the defendant did to cause the injury in question; or, in other words, would a reasonable person, acting reasonably, have engaged in similar conduct when compared to the one whose actions caused the injury in question? Simple as the "reasonable person" test sounds, it is very complicated. It is a risky test because it involves the opinion of either the judge or the jury that can be based on limited facts. However, as vague as the "reasonable person" test seems, it is extremely important in deciding whether or not a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for a negligence tort. 1171: 1204:, was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander. The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was hit by coin-operated scale which toppled because of fireworks explosion that fell on her as she waited on a train platform. The scales fell because of a far-away commotion (a train conductor had pushed a passenger holding a box containing an explosive) but it was not clear that what type of commotion caused the scale to fall, either it was the explosion's effect or the confused movement of the terrified people. A train 1194:' (in the U.S.) of another's harm if one would 'never' reasonably foresee it happening. A 'proximate cause' in U.S. terminology (to do with the chain of events between the action and the injury) should not be confused with the 'proximity test' under the English duty of care (to do with closeness of relationship). The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible? For instance, in 1048:, McHale, a 9-year-old girl was blinded in one eye after being hit by the ricochet of a sharp metal rod thrown by a 12-year-old boy, Watson. The defendant child was held not to have the level of care to the standard of an adult, but of a 12-year-old child with similar experience and intelligence. Kitto J explained that a child's lack of foresight is a characteristic they share with others at that stage of development. The same principle was demonstrated to exist in English law in 1242:. The wife of a policeman, Mrs Coffey suffered a nervous shock injury from the aftermath of a motor vehicle collision although she was not actually at the scene at the time of the collision. The court upheld that, in addition to it being reasonably foreseeable that his wife might suffer such an injury, it required that there be sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant who caused the collision. Here there was sufficient causal proximity. See also 4532: 1707: 807: 4546: 1685:

and causation elements in particular give the court the greatest opportunity to take the case from the jury, because they directly involve questions of policy. The court can find that regardless of any disputed facts, the case may be resolved as a matter of law from undisputed facts because as a matter of law the defendant cannot be legally responsible for the plaintiff's injury under a theory of negligence.

1392:– these are damages that are not quantified in monetary terms (e.g., there's no invoice or receipt as there would be to prove special damages). A general damage example is an amount for the pain and suffering one experiences from a car collision. Lastly, where the plaintiff proves only minimal loss or damage, or the court or jury is unable to quantify the losses, the court or jury may award 1562: 1477:, lack of experience, or non-compliance with laws, regulations, orders, or disciplinary rules. Consistent with other civil law systems, Turkish Criminal Law also treats criminal responsibility for acts committed negligently as an exception, confined to those acts explicitly stated in the law. Article 23 of the Turkish Penal Code further asserts that for crimes that are 960:. She drank some of the beer and later poured the remainder over her ice-cream and was horrified to see the decomposed remains of a snail exit the bottle. Donoghue suffered nervous shock and gastro-enteritis, but did not sue the cafe owner, instead suing the manufacturer, Stevenson. (As Mrs Donoghue had not herself bought the ginger beer, the doctrine of 1689:

example, in an appeal from a final judgment after a jury verdict, the appellate court will review the record to verify that the jury was properly instructed on each contested element, and that the record shows sufficient evidence for the jury's findings. On an appeal from a dismissal or judgment against the plaintiff without trial, the court will review

1221:

for negligence before having a chance to present to the jury. Cardozo's view is the majority view. However, some courts follow the position put forth by Judge Andrews. In jurisdictions following the minority rule, defendants must phrase their remoteness arguments in terms of proximate cause if they wish the court to take the case away from the jury.

3020:

disregard of safety of others. ... negligence represents a state of the mind which however is much serious in nature than mere inadvertence. ... whereas inadvertence is a milder form of negligence, negligence by itself means and imply a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow."

1217:

written by Judge Cardozo, that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, because a duty was owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs. Three judges dissented, arguing, as written by Judge Andrews, that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, regardless of foreseeability, because all men owe one another a duty not to act negligently.

1402:– Punitive damages are to punish a defendant, rather than to compensate plaintiffs, in negligence cases. In most jurisdictions punitive damages are recoverable in a negligence action, but only if the plaintiff shows that the defendant's conduct was more than ordinary negligence (i.e., wanton and willful or reckless). 1547:

a similar manner the skill in question. Consequently, it is not necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch which he practices. Professional opinion is generally accepted, but courts may rule otherwise if they feel that the opinion is "not reasonable or responsible".

1424:, the term "négligence" is used to denote an omission, akin to the English term "negligence." However, unlike "criminal negligence", it describes situations where the perpetrator acts without being aware of the potential consequences of their actions or disregards these consequences. Similarly, under the 3019:

In the case of Ms Grewal & Anor v Deep Chand Soon & Ors L.R.I. 1289 at , the court held that "negligence in common parlance mean and imply failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful

1546:

They did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for determining whether or not either of the two findings can be made is whether a competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession would possess or exercise in

1324:. This is Latin for "the thing speaks for itself." To prove negligence under this doctrine the plaintiff must prove (1) the incident does not usually happen without negligence, (2) the object that caused the harm was under the defendant's control and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to the cause. 1308:

The eggshell skull rule is a legal doctrine upheld in some tort law systems, which holds that a tortfeasor is liable for the full extent of damage caused, even where the extent of the damage is due to the unforeseen frailty of the claimant. The eggshell skull rule was recently maintained in Australia

1208:

had run to help a man into a departing train. The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The package had fireworks in it. The conductor mishandled the passenger or his package, causing the package to fall. The fireworks slipped and exploded on the ground causing shockwaves

1080:

held that a defendant was not negligent if the damage to the plaintiff were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct. In the case, a Miss Stone was struck on the head by a cricket ball while standing outside a cricket ground. Finding that no batsman would normally be able hit a cricket

919:

Some jurisdictions narrow the definition down to three elements: duty, breach and proximately caused harm. Some jurisdictions recognize five elements, duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Despite these differences, definitions of what constitutes negligent conduct remain similar.

877:

through a negligent act. The concept of negligence is linked to the obligation of individuals to exercise reasonable care in their actions and to consider foreseeable harm that their conduct might cause to other people or property. The elements of a negligence claim include the duty to act or refrain

1668:

who makes a negligence claim must prove all four elements of negligence in order to win his or her case. Therefore, if it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff can prove one of the elements, the defendant may request judicial resolution early on, to prevent the case from going to a jury. This can be

1369:

Damages are compensatory in nature. Compensatory damages addresses a plaintiff/claimant's losses (in cases involving physical or mental injury the amount awarded also compensates for pain and suffering). The award should make the plaintiff whole, sufficient to put the plaintiff back in the position

1684:

at trial (the judge in a bench trial, or jury in a jury trial) to decide whether the defendant is or is not liable. Whether the case is resolved with or without trial again depends heavily on the particular facts of the case, and the ability of the parties to frame the issues to the court. The duty

1373:

There are also two other general principles relating to damages. Firstly, the award of damages should take place in the form of a single lump sum payment. Therefore, a defendant should not be required to make periodic payments (however some statutes give exceptions for this). Secondly, the Court is

1036:

Once it is established that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff/claimant, the matter of whether or not that duty was breached must be settled. The test is both subjective and objective. The defendant who knowingly (subjective, which is totally based on observation and personal prejudice or

934:

The legal liability of a defendant to a plaintiff is based on the defendant's failure to fulfil a responsibility, recognised by law, of which the plaintiff is the intended beneficiary. The first step in determining the existence of a legally recognised responsibility is the concept of an obligation

1220:

Such disparity of views on the element of remoteness continues to trouble the judiciary. Courts that follow Cardozo's view have greater control in negligence cases. If the court can find that, as a matter of law, the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will lose his case

1216:

The defendant train company argued it should not be liable as a matter of law, because despite the fact that they employed the employee, who was negligent, his negligence was too remote from the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the majority of the court agreed, with four judges adopting the reasons,

1055:

Certain jurisdictions, also provide for breaches where professionals, such as doctors, fail to warn of risks associated with medical treatments or procedures. Doctors owe both objective and subjective duties to warn; and breach of either is sufficient to satisfy this element in a court of law. For

1273:

Negligence is different in that the plaintiff must ordinarily prove a pecuniary loss in order to recover damages. In some cases, such as defamation per se, damages may be presumed. Recovery for non-pecuniary losses, such as emotional injury, are normally recoverable only if the plaintiff has also

1265:

As a general rule, plaintiffs in tort litigation can only recover damages if they prove both that they suffered a loss and that the loss was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. When damages are not a necessary element of a tort claim, a plaintiff may prevail without demonstrating a financial

1234:

harbour. The ship leaked oil creating a slick in part of the harbour. The wharf owner asked the ship owner about the danger and was told he could continue his work because the slick would not burn. The wharf owner allowed work to continue on the wharf, which sent sparks onto a rag in the water

1688:

On appeal, depending on the disposition of the case and the question on appeal, the court reviewing a trial court's determination that the defendant was negligent will analyze at least one of the elements of the cause of action to determine if it is properly supported by the facts and law. For

979:

interpreted the biblical ordinance to "love thy neighbour" as a legal requirement to "not harm thy neighbour". He then went on to define neighbour as "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am

989:

introduced a "threefold test" for a duty of care. Harm must be (1) reasonably foreseeable (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and (3) it must be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability. However, these act as guidelines for the courts in

1087:, Lord Denning said the past should not be viewed through rose coloured spectacles, finding no negligence on the part of medical professionals accused of using contaminated medical jars, since contemporary standards would have indicated only a low possibility of medical jar contamination. 1374:

not concerned with how the plaintiff uses the award of damages. For example, if a plaintiff is awarded $ 100,000 for physical harm, the plaintiff is not required to spend this money on medical bills to restore them to their original position – they can spend this money any way they want.

1069:

it was held that the government had no immunity from suit when they negligently failed to prevent the escape of juvenile offenders who subsequently vandalise a boatyard. In other words, all members of society have a duty to exercise reasonable care toward others and their property. In

1056:

example, the Civil Liability Act in Queensland outlines a statutory test incorporating both objective and subjective elements. For example, an obstetrician who fails to warn a mother of complications arising from childbirth may be held to have breached their professional duty of care.

1795:

She could have sued the man or the conductor himself, but they did not have as much money as the company. Often, in litigation, where two defendants are equally liable but one is more able to satisfy a judgment, he will be the preferred defendant and is referred to as the "deep

1081:

ball far enough to reach a person standing as far away as was Miss Stone, the court held her claim would fail because the danger was not reasonably or sufficiently foreseeable. As stated in the opinion, "reasonable risk" cannot be judged with the benefit of hindsight. In

1190:, "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class." It is said a new question arises of how remote a consequence a person's harm is from another's negligence. We say that one's negligence is 'too remote' (in England) or not a ' 1781:

The plaintiff's physical injuries were minor and more likely caused by a stampede of travelers on the platform rather than the concussion of the exploding fireworks. These details have not, however, stopped the case from becoming the source of extensive debate in

1405:

Aggravated damages – In contrast to exemplary damages, compensation are given to the plaintiff when the harm is aggravated by the defendant's conduct. For example, the manner of this wrongful act increased the injury by subjecting the plaintiff to humiliation,

1299:

A claimant who has suffered only emotional distress and no pecuniary loss would not recover for negligence. However, courts have recently allowed recovery for a plaintiff to recover for purely emotional distress under certain circumstances. The state courts of

1288:

is limited to a number of 'special' and clearly defined circumstances, often related to the nature of the duty to the plaintiff as between clients and lawyers, financial advisers, and other professions where money is central to the consultative services.

1295:

has been recognized as an actionable tort. Generally, emotional distress damages had to be parasitic. That is, the plaintiff could recover for emotional distress caused by injury, but only if it accompanied a physical or pecuniary injury.

1132:

In order for liability to result from a negligent act or omission, it is necessary to prove not only that the injury was caused by that negligence, but also that there is a legally sufficient connection between the act and the negligence.

1640: 1235:

which ignited and created a fire which burnt down the wharf. The Privy Council determined that the wharf owner 'intervened' in the causal chain, creating a responsibility for the fire which canceled out the liability of the ship owner.

1386:– quantifiable dollar losses suffered from the date of defendant's negligent act (the tort) up to a specified time (proven at trial). Special damage examples include lost wages, medical bills, and damage to property such as one's car. 1538:

requires that any skilled task requires a skilled professional. Such a professional would be expected to be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. Professionals may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings:

1304:

allowed recovery for emotional distress alone – even in the absence of any physical injury, when the defendant physically injures a relative of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff witnesses it.

1473:. However, Article 43 provides exceptions for crimes arising from negligence or exceeding intentionality. These negligent crimes occur despite the defendant's foresight and are the result of negligence, 1037:

view) exposes the plaintiff/claimant to a substantial risk of loss, breaches that duty. The defendant who fails to realize the substantial risk of loss to the plaintiff/claimant, which any

1262:

Even though there is breach of duty, and the cause of some injury to the defendant, a plaintiff may not recover unless he can prove that the defendant's breach caused a pecuniary injury.

1209:

to travel through the platform, which became the cause of commotion on platform, and as a consequence, the scales fell. Because Palsgraf was hurt by the falling scales, she sued the

1158:

Asbestos litigations which have been ongoing for decades revolve around the issue of causation. Interwoven with the simple idea of a party causing harm to another are issues on

1041:

in the same situation would clearly have realized, also breaches that duty. However, whether the test is objective or subjective may depend upon the particular case involved.

1805:

Refers to the situation of "conscious negligence" where the perpetrator performs the act with the confidence that the anticipated outcome will not occur, as opposed to

2868: 971:

The Scottish judge, Lord MacMillan, considered the case to fall within a new category of delict (the Scots law nearest equivalent of tort). The case proceeded to the

878:

from action, breach of that duty, actual and proximate cause of harm, and damages. Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue for

1274:

proved a pecuniary loss. Examples of pecuniary loss include medical bills that result from an injury, or repair costs or loss of income due to property damage.

1822:, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a reasonable person would not do. 2637: 1466: 2155: 1580: 1359:

in the breach of the duty of care is irrelevant. Once the breach of the duty is established, the only requirement is to compensate the victim.

1277:

The damage may be physical, purely economic, both physical and economic (loss of earnings following a personal injury,) or reputational (in a

1653:: Dicks v Hobson Swan Construction Ltd (2006) HC; North Shore City Council v Body Corporate ("Sunset Terraces"); Spencer on Byron (2011) SC. 1617: 90: 2103: 1611: 3329: 1647:

3 NZLR 513; Te Mata Properties Ltd v Hastings District Council. 1 NZLR 460; Queenstown Lakes DC V Charterhall Trustees Ltd NZSC 116;

1186:

Sometimes factual causation is distinguished from 'legal causation' to avert the danger of defendants being exposed to, in the words of

1292: 230: 1848: 1624: 1481:

by their consequences to be attributed to the perpetrator, the base crime must be committed with intent. Furthermore, concerning the

3208: 3119:

Vennell, Margaret A. (1977). "The Essentials of Nuisance: A Discussion of Recent New Zealand Developments in the Tort of Nuisance".

1331:

comes down to whether or not a party violated a standard in law meant to protect the public such as a building code or speed limit.

4513: 3285: 2781: 1077: 972: 1955: 1355:

for "restoration to the original condition"). Thus, for most purposes connected with the quantification of damages, the degree of

4596: 3163:

Donoghue v Stevenson and local authorities: A New Zealand perspective - can the tort of negligence be built on shaky foundations?

2938: 2655: 2090: 949: 3177: 1632: 1535: 1469:, enacted on October 19, 1930, specifies in Article 42 that a person can only be punished for a crime if it was committed with 882:

to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss.

165: 1913: 1664:

The United States generally recognizes four elements to a negligence action: duty, breach, proximate causation and injury. A

1614:

2 NZLR 729, Paxhaven Holdings LId. v. Attorney-General 2 N.Z.L.R. 185 (both on the interrelation of negligence and nuisance)

1196: 1370:

he or she was before Defendant's negligent act. Anything more would unlawfully permit a plaintiff to profit from the tort.

2526: 1996: 1362:

One of the main tests that is posed when deliberating whether a claimant is entitled to compensation for a tort, is the "

1092: 1644: 837: 3939: 3497: 3396: 3145: 3103: 3078: 2069: 1938: 1065: 1006:

Whether a duty of care is owed for psychiatric, as opposed to physical, harm was discussed in the Australian case of

999: 4053: 3922: 2678: 1680:

The elements allow a defendant to test a plaintiff's accusations before trial, as well as providing a guide to the

1636: 915:

causation: the injury to the plaintiff is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act or omission.

4508: 3855: 3756: 2892: 2308: 2296: 1485:

or unintended consequences, the perpetrator must have acted with at least a minimal level of negligence, whether

985: 556: 4015: 3649: 2470: 488: 3368: 1031: 4175: 3654: 2041: 346: 379: 4170: 2575: 2356: 2184: 1695:

whether the court below properly found that the plaintiff could not prove any or all of his or her case.

1628: 562: 27: 4591: 4145: 3644: 1601: 1205: 336: 4228: 651: 500: 4023: 4005: 2757: 2647: 2535: 2506: 2396: 2272: 2222: 2204: 2164: 2135: 2086: 2078: 1470: 1142: 1083: 684: 668: 235: 195: 4357: 2197:

Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales; Sheehan v State Rail Authority of New South Wales

1114:

Further establishment of conditions of intention or malice where applicable may apply in cases of

1044:

There is a reduced threshold for the standard of care owed by children. In the Australian case of

16:

Failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances

4398: 4185: 3674: 3659: 2872: 2761: 2698: 2651: 2559: 2539: 2510: 2494: 2383: 2328: 2276: 2226: 2208: 2168: 2139: 1226: 1175: 953: 549: 374: 341: 3335:— Britannica 1911's account of negligence: an interesting historical read, preceding the era of 862:) is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances. 4453: 4438: 3249:

McLauchlan, William P. (June 1977). "An Empirical Study of the Federal Summary Judgment Rule".

2612: 2466: 1347: 1104: 891: 890:

To successfully pursue a claim of negligence through a lawsuit, a plaintiff must establish the

830: 745: 567: 478: 321: 266: 170: 65: 2918: 2888: 2674: 2304: 2292: 2082: 1761: 1641:

South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v New Zealand Security Consultants & Investigations Ltd

1456: 4557: 4150: 3828: 3639: 944:

established the modern law of negligence, laying the foundations of the duty of care and the

705: 679: 598: 483: 445: 240: 200: 187: 1448:) is defined as the occurrence of a legally foreseen consequence due to a lack of necessary 4278: 3624: 2983: 2864: 2694: 2555: 2531: 2490: 2474: 2379: 2324: 2268: 2218: 2200: 2160: 2131: 2055: 940: 177: 117: 3323: 2753: 2502: 1856: 1003:(AKR) (1936). This was a landmark case in the development of negligence law in Australia. 956:. May Donoghue and her friend were in a café in Paisley. The friend bought Mrs Donoghue a 8: 4433: 3573: 3490: 2643: 2074: 1726: 1421: 990:

establishing a duty of care; much of the principle is still at the discretion of judges.

542: 536: 495: 432: 255: 56: 4248: 3907: 3761: 3746: 3724: 3468: 3448: 3401: 3391: 3266: 3228: 2440: 2415: 2035: 1878: 1746: 1425: 1162:

bills and compensations, which sometimes drove compensating companies out of business.

1146: 1063:, Lord Macmillan declared that "the categories of negligence are never closed"; and in 785: 672: 603: 572: 463: 427: 403: 359: 142: 84: 2730:

Carr, Christopher (May 1974). "Measuring the Pecuniary Loss in Damages for Personal".

1818:

In other words, the breach of the duty caused by the omission to do something which a

4586: 4233: 4155: 3993: 3736: 3731: 3684: 3609: 3603: 3443: 3361: 3270: 3141: 3099: 3074: 2953: 2785: 2445: 1934: 1909: 1819: 1503: 1482: 1478: 1363: 1179: 1038: 894:

of negligence. In most jurisdictions there are four elements to a negligence action:

823: 730: 725: 715: 710: 526: 505: 369: 315: 302: 250: 210: 2824: 2799: 2239: 1576: 1543:

They were not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed.

4238: 4205: 3704: 3568: 3563: 3528: 3258: 3220: 3121: 2435: 2431: 2427: 1967: 1731: 1674: 1522: 1486: 1441: 1429: 1399: 1187: 1170: 1115: 740: 720: 593: 521: 473: 422: 355: 297: 205: 182: 124: 112: 1238:

In Australia the concept of remoteness, or proximity, was tested with the case of

912:

damages: as a result of that act or omission, the plaintiff suffers an injury, and

4487: 4460: 4448: 4428: 4362: 4340: 4320: 4315: 4295: 4160: 4140: 4135: 4038: 3998: 3709: 3634: 3558: 3543: 3463: 2369: 1527: 1437: 1393: 1389: 1383: 1267: 1191: 1152: 1127: 1072: 965: 957: 735: 397: 326: 309: 4564: 4372: 4290: 3879: 3845: 3796: 3781: 3553: 3458: 3438: 3428: 2775: 1736: 1691: 1681: 775: 531: 413: 331: 133: 79: 74: 19:

For the related concept in caregiving entirely outside of a legal context, see

4580: 4418: 4377: 4263: 4243: 4215: 4165: 4130: 4104: 4099: 4092: 4043: 3983: 3823: 3813: 3771: 3694: 3689: 3619: 3578: 3502: 3333:. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 342–343. 3318: 1956:"A Tangled Webb – Reexamining the Role of Duty in Indiana Negligence Actions" 1783: 1530:(i.e. the violation resulted in injury to the plaintiff's person or property) 1285: 945: 909:

breach: the defendant breaches that duty through an act or culpable omission,

615: 1345:

Damages place a monetary value on the harm done, following the principle of

4550: 4300: 4268: 4223: 3961: 3956: 3927: 3840: 3818: 3786: 3719: 3699: 3593: 3533: 3523: 3475: 3433: 3411: 3354: 2449: 1721: 1515: 1474: 1449: 929: 874: 793: 780: 770: 689: 275: 1010:(2002). Determining a duty for mental harm has now been subsumed into the 4472: 4413: 4403: 4200: 4195: 4033: 3934: 3850: 3809: 3776: 3741: 3664: 3588: 3538: 3453: 1741: 1356: 980:

directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question."

646: 245: 160: 4536: 4465: 4345: 4283: 4028: 3949: 3944: 3902: 3884: 3872: 3833: 3679: 3669: 3629: 3614: 3598: 3548: 3485: 3480: 3232: 3178:"Chicken Little at the Reference Desk: The Myth of Librarian Liability" 2456: 1712: 1605: 1301: 1278: 976: 811: 755: 658: 610: 280: 147: 39: 2128:

Tame v State of New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd

1008:

Tame v State of New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd

4443: 4408: 4350: 4325: 4190: 4087: 4075: 4060: 4048: 3976: 3894: 3867: 3751: 1665: 1159: 903: 899: 789: 4531: 3224: 1706: 1428:

No. 5237, which took effect on June 1, 2005, "criminal negligence" (

806: 454: 4492: 4477: 4180: 4065: 3862: 3406: 3262: 2487:

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem

1806: 1751: 1670: 1461: 765: 625: 388: 285: 107: 1971: 935:

or duty. In the tort of negligence the term used is duty of care

4382: 4330: 4310: 4258: 4070: 3988: 3804: 3766: 3714: 3322: 1756: 1340: 1201: 961: 879: 620: 588: 468: 290: 20: 4482: 4335: 4080: 3971: 3966: 3912: 3583: 1929:

Deakin, Simon F.; Markesinis, B.S.; Johnston, Angus C. (2003).

1231: 663: 630: 4423: 4367: 4273: 4114: 3917: 3416: 1352: 1210: 854: 440: 4305: 4253: 4109: 3507: 3423: 2711:

Blanchard, Sadie (2022). "Nominal Damages as Vindication".

866: 47: 3377: 1518:(i.e. a legal duty to exercise "ordinary care and skill") 1928: 2854: 3346: 1623:

Cases regarding negligence in building construction:

3209:"Thoughts on Directed Verdicts and Summary Judgments" 2104:"Example of the Development of the Law of Negligence" 1270:

along with any other remedy available under the law.

1014:

in New South Wales. The application of Part 3 of the

3004: 2666: 2664: 2638:

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co

1933:(5 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 218. 1702: 1165: 2521: 2519: 2150: 2148: 1213:company who employed the conductor for negligence. 1136: 3071:The law of defamation in Australia and New Zealand 1459:, as a rule, requires a person to have acted with 997:was used as a persuasive precedent in the case of 3286:"Standards of Review – Looking beyond the Labels" 2954:"Taksirle Ölüme Sebebiyet Verme Suçu (TCK m. 85)" 2684: 2661: 2630: 4578: 2516: 2145: 885: 3005:Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Singh J, G.P. (ed.), 2961:İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 2420:Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) 1465:, for an act to be punishable. Comparably, the 2904:Mehmet Hakan Hakeri, M. H. H., İhmali Suçlar, 2030:. Dublin 12: Gill & Macmillan. p. 19. 1581:sources that evaluate within a broader context 1284:In English law, the right to claim for purely 873:pertains to harm caused by the violation of a 3362: 3244: 3242: 2545: 1604:1 NZLR 519 (the court differentiated between 831: 2376:Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer 1618:Mainguard Packaging Ltd v Hilton Haulage Ltd 91:Intentional infliction of emotional distress 2878: 2123: 2121: 1612:Clearlite Holdings Ltd v Auckland City Corp 1436:) refers to a person’s failure to act when 3369: 3355: 3248: 3239: 3057:Vinitha Ashok v Lakshmi Hospital & Ors 1508:Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: The Law of Torts 1109: 838: 824: 231:Negligent infliction of emotional distress 3140:(4th ed.). LexisNexis. p. 245. 2932: 2710: 2439: 1855:. Oxford University Press. Archived from 1625:Bowen v Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd 4514:History of the American legal profession 3317: 3073:. Sydney: Federation Press. p. 10. 3068: 2413: 2118: 1200:the judge decided that the defendant, a 1169: 3138:Butterworths Student Companion Contract 3118: 2463:Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez 1903: 1224:Remoteness takes another form, seen in 4579: 3206: 3175: 3160: 3135: 2981: 1990: 1988: 1633:Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson 1020:Wicks v SRA (NSW); Sheehan v SRA (NSW) 3350: 3283: 3165:. University of the West of Scotland. 3093: 3040: 3038: 2600:Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co. 2527:March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd 2025: 1953: 1908:. New York: Oxford University Press. 1571:focuses too much on specific examples 1197:Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co. 3213:The University of Chicago Law Review 3096:Butterworths Student Companion Torts 2951: 2729: 1994: 1555: 1316: 952:), have been adopted throughout the 902:has a duty to others, including the 1985: 1673:, motion to dismiss, or motion for 1093:United States v. Carroll Towing Co. 983:In England the more recent case of 13: 3035: 1645:Invercargill City Council v Hamlin 14: 4608: 3498:Restitution and unjust enrichment 3311: 2829:LII / Legal Information Institute 2804:LII / Legal Information Institute 2590:(1931) 255 N.Y. 170, 174 N.E. 441 2215:Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd 2070:Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 2062: 1997:"The Five Elements of Negligence" 1166:Legal causation (proximate cause) 1025: 1000:Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 4545: 4544: 4530: 3207:Currie, David P. (Autumn 1977). 2849:Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co 1931:Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law 1705: 1659: 1637:Brown v Heathcote County Council 1560: 1230:. The Wagon Mound was a ship in 1137:Factual causation (actual cause) 805: 4509:History of the legal profession 3277: 3200: 3169: 3154: 3129: 3112: 3087: 3062: 3050: 3023: 3013: 2998: 2975: 2945: 2926: 2911: 2898: 2842: 2817: 2792: 2767: 2742: 2723: 2704: 2605: 2593: 2581: 2565: 2480: 2407: 2389: 2362: 2346: 2334: 2314: 2299:(NSW, Australia); see also 2282: 2258: 2232: 2190: 2174: 2096: 2093:(on appeal from Australia). 1812: 1799: 1789: 1775: 1521:A violation of the appropriate 1506:follows the approach stated in 1266:injury, potentially recovering 986:Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman 923: 557:Ex turpi causa non oritur actio 4597:Legal doctrines and principles 3045:Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab 3030:Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab 3009:(24th. ed.), Butterworths 2432:10.1080/08998280.2006.11928212 2240:"Breach of Duty in Negligence" 2048: 2019: 1995:Owen, David G. (Summer 2007). 1947: 1922: 1897: 1871: 1841: 1551: 1510:, laying down three elements: 948:principle which, (through the 906:, to exercise reasonable care, 1: 2984:"Türk Ceza Kanunu'nda Taksir" 2937:(in Italian) (2nd ed.). 1829: 1492: 1101:For the rule in the U.S., see 1032:Breach of duty in English law 886:Elements of negligence claims 667:(term used for torts in some 3251:The Journal of Legal Studies 3098:(4th ed.). LexisNexis. 2933:Mantovani, Ferrando (2007). 2779:, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968) and 1834: 1415: 1410: 1121: 1096:159 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir. 1947) 7: 3032:S.C. 0547, per R.C. Lahoti. 2786:Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 2400:(1954) 2 AER 131; see also 2265:Wyong Shire Council v Shirt 1954:Boehm, Theodore R. (2003). 1698: 1629:Scott Group Ltd v McFarlane 1502:With regard to negligence, 1151:For a defendant to be held 968:action against Stevenson). 563:Joint and several liability 28:Negligence (disambiguation) 10: 4613: 4176:International legal theory 3655:International slavery laws 3650:International human rights 3645:International criminal law 3069:Gillooly, Michael (1998). 2982:Çiftçioğlu, Cengiz Topel. 2935:Principi di diritto penale 2658: (on appeal from NSW). 2588:Ultramares Corp. v. Touche 2402:Glasgow Corporation v Muir 2089:49 (21 October 1935), 1853:Oxford Living Dictionaries 1602:Balfour v Attorney-General 1338: 1334: 1140: 1125: 1066:Dorset Yacht v Home Office 1029: 1018:(NSW) was demonstrated in 927: 337:Comparative responsibility 25: 18: 4524: 4501: 4391: 4229:Administration of justice 4214: 4123: 4014: 3893: 3795: 3516: 3384: 3284:Hofer, Ronald R. (1990). 3136:Walker, Campbell (2004). 2416:"Malice/gross negligence" 1762:Negligence in English Law 1257: 652:Non-economic damages caps 4006:Basic structure doctrine 3856:Natural and legal rights 3737:Public international law 3176:Healey, Paul D. (1995). 2889:[2003] NSWCA 208 2789:, 27 Cal. 3d 916 (1980). 2675:[1998] NSWSC 779 2572:Civil Liability Act 2005 2414:Thornton, R. G. (2006). 2397:Roe v Minister of Health 2353:Civil Liability Act 2003 2305:[2006] NSWCA 222 2293:[2005] NSWCA 151 2181:Civil Liability Act 2002 2083:[1935] UKPCHCA 1 2040:: CS1 maint: location ( 1768: 1497: 1143:Causation in English law 1084:Roe v Minister of Health 1016:Civil Liability Act 2002 1012:Civil Liability Act 2002 685:Private attorney general 639:Other topics in tort law 267:Principles of negligence 196:Alienation of affections 4186:Principle of typicality 3660:International trade law 3376: 3330:Encyclopædia Britannica 2952:Ünal, Ertuğrul (2015). 2713:George Mason Law Review 2654:709 (25 May 1966), 2613:"Palsgraf v Long_Is_RR" 1536:professional negligence 1534:The Indian approach to 1227:The Wagon Mound (No. 2) 1174:Negligence can lead to 1110:Intention and/or malice 550:Volenti non fit injuria 375:Ultrahazardous activity 342:Contributory negligence 2644:[1966] UKPC 10 2075:[1935] UKPC 62 1445: 1440:, while "negligence" ( 1433: 1348:restitutio in integrum 1183: 1176:this sort of collision 1105:Calculus of negligence 568:Market share liability 501:Shopkeeper's privilege 479:Statute of limitations 322:Restitutio ad integrum 171:Intrusion on seclusion 66:Trespass to the person 4181:Principle of legality 3940:Delegated legislation 3640:Intellectual property 3341:Donoghue v. Stevenson 3161:French, Mike (2012). 3094:McLay, Geoff (2003). 2895:(NSW, Australia). 2865:[1981] HCA 72 2732:The Modern Law Review 2695:[2008] HCA 40 2681:(NSW, Australia). 2556:[2013] HCA 19 2532:[1991] HCA 12 2491:[2009] HCA 48 2380:[2007] HCA 42 2327: (7 March 1966), 2325:[1966] HCA 13 2311:(NSW, Australia). 2275:40 (1 May 1980), 2269:[1980] HCA 12 2219:[2005] HCA 15 2201:[2010] HCA 22 2161:[1984] HCA 52 2132:[2002] HCA 35 1904:Feinman, Jay (2010). 1173: 680:Conflict of tort laws 446:Tortious interference 201:Criminal conversation 188:Malicious prosecution 4399:Barristers' chambers 4341:Legal representation 4279:Justice of the peace 3625:Financial regulation 3290:Marquette Law Review 2885:State of NSW v Riley 2754:[1977] HCA 8 2503:[2012] HCA 5 2056:Donoghue v Stevenson 2026:Quill, Eoin (2014). 1577:improve this section 1504:Indian jurisprudence 1061:Donoghue v Stevenson 995:Donoghue v Stevenson 941:Donoghue v Stevenson 865:Within the scope of 178:Breach of confidence 26:For other uses, see 4434:Election commission 4146:Expressive function 3675:Landlord–tenant law 3574:Consumer protection 3182:Law Library Journal 2941:. pp. 159–163. 2908:, 2(4), pp. 137-169 2906:Ceza Hukuku Dergisi 2825:"negligence per se" 2800:"Res Ipsa Loquitur" 2640:(Wagon Mound No. 2) 2499:Strong v Woolworths 2301:Drinkwater v Howart 1807:intentional conduct 1727:Criminal negligence 1422:Swiss Criminal Code 1178:: a train wreck at 673:mixed legal systems 543:Respondeat superior 537:Vicarious liability 496:Defence of property 433:Insurance bad faith 347:Attractive nuisance 166:Invasion of privacy 4392:Legal institutions 4259:Lawsuit/Litigation 4249:Dispute resolution 4054:Catholic canon law 3762:State of emergency 3725:Will and testament 3449:Law of obligations 3402:Constitutional law 3392:Administrative law 3324:"Negligence" 2861:Todorovic v Waller 2602:(1928) 162 N.E. 99 2374:A.C. 850 see also 2001:Hofstra Law Review 1960:Indiana Law Review 1883:Britannica English 1747:Medical negligence 1643:2 NZLR 282 ; 1489:or inadvertently. 1467:Italian Penal Code 1426:Turkish Penal Code 1293:Emotional distress 1184: 1147:Breaking the chain 573:Transferred intent 464:Assumption of risk 428:Restraint of trade 404:Rylands v Fletcher 236:Employment-related 85:False imprisonment 4592:Law of negligence 4574: 4573: 4234:Constitutionalism 4156:Law and economics 3994:Act of parliament 3732:Product liability 3685:Legal archaeology 3610:Environmental law 3604:Entertainment law 3444:International law 2691:Imbree v McNeilly 2671:Kavanagh v Akhtar 2341:Mullin v Richards 2289:Doubleday v Kelly 1915:978-0-19-539513-6 1885:. Merriam Webster 1820:reasonable person 1598: 1597: 1457:French penal code 1364:reasonable person 1322:Res ipsa loquitur 1317:Special doctrines 1311:Kavanagh v Akhtar 1248:Imbree v McNeilly 1244:Kavanagh v Akhtar 1180:Gare Montparnasse 1050:Mullin v Richards 1039:reasonable person 958:ginger beer float 848: 847: 721:England and Wales 676: 527:Last clear chance 522:Intentional torts 506:Neutral reportage 489:Defense of others 437: 370:Product liability 316:Res ipsa loquitur 303:Reasonable person 211:Breach of promise 60: 4604: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4535: 4534: 4358:Question of fact 4239:Criminal justice 3569:Construction law 3564:Conflict of laws 3529:Agricultural law 3371: 3364: 3357: 3348: 3347: 3334: 3326: 3305: 3304: 3302: 3300: 3281: 3275: 3274: 3246: 3237: 3236: 3204: 3198: 3197: 3195: 3193: 3173: 3167: 3166: 3158: 3152: 3151: 3133: 3127: 3126: 3122:Otago Law Review 3116: 3110: 3109: 3091: 3085: 3084: 3066: 3060: 3059:4 L.R.I.292 at . 3054: 3048: 3042: 3033: 3027: 3021: 3017: 3011: 3010: 3007:The Law of Torts 3002: 2996: 2995: 2993: 2991: 2979: 2973: 2972: 2970: 2968: 2958: 2949: 2943: 2942: 2930: 2924: 2915: 2909: 2902: 2896: 2882: 2876: 2858: 2852: 2851:(1856) Ex Ch 781 2846: 2840: 2839: 2837: 2835: 2821: 2815: 2814: 2812: 2810: 2796: 2790: 2771: 2765: 2746: 2740: 2739: 2727: 2721: 2720: 2708: 2702: 2688: 2682: 2668: 2659: 2634: 2628: 2627: 2625: 2623: 2617:www.nycourts.gov 2609: 2603: 2597: 2591: 2585: 2579: 2569: 2563: 2549: 2543: 2523: 2514: 2484: 2478: 2460: 2454: 2453: 2443: 2411: 2405: 2404:(1943) 2 AER 44. 2393: 2387: 2366: 2360: 2350: 2344: 2338: 2332: 2321:McHale v Watson 2318: 2312: 2286: 2280: 2262: 2256: 2255: 2253: 2251: 2236: 2230: 2194: 2188: 2178: 2172: 2156:Jaensch v Coffey 2152: 2143: 2125: 2116: 2114: 2108: 2100: 2094: 2066: 2060: 2052: 2046: 2045: 2039: 2031: 2028:Torts In Ireland 2023: 2017: 2016: 2014: 2012: 1992: 1983: 1982: 1980: 1978: 1951: 1945: 1944: 1926: 1920: 1919: 1901: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1890: 1875: 1869: 1868: 1866: 1864: 1859:on 6 August 2017 1845: 1823: 1816: 1810: 1803: 1797: 1793: 1787: 1779: 1732:Gross negligence 1715: 1710: 1709: 1675:summary judgment 1593: 1590: 1584: 1564: 1563: 1556: 1523:standard of care 1400:Punitive damages 1240:Jaensch v Coffey 1116:gross negligence 840: 833: 826: 810: 809: 666: 435: 298:Standard of care 183:Abuse of process 93: 54: 35: 34: 4612: 4611: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4570: 4543: 4529: 4520: 4497: 4488:Political party 4461:Legal education 4449:Law enforcement 4429:Court of equity 4387: 4363:Question of law 4316:Practice of law 4296:Judicial review 4210: 4161:Legal formalism 4141:Comparative law 4136:Contract theory 4119: 4039:Legal pluralism 4010: 3999:Act of Congress 3923:Executive order 3889: 3791: 3710:Nationality law 3635:Immigration law 3559:Competition law 3512: 3380: 3375: 3314: 3309: 3308: 3298: 3296: 3282: 3278: 3247: 3240: 3225:10.2307/1599201 3205: 3201: 3191: 3189: 3174: 3170: 3159: 3155: 3148: 3134: 3130: 3117: 3113: 3106: 3092: 3088: 3081: 3067: 3063: 3055: 3051: 3043: 3036: 3028: 3024: 3018: 3014: 3003: 2999: 2989: 2987: 2980: 2976: 2966: 2964: 2956: 2950: 2946: 2931: 2927: 2916: 2912: 2903: 2899: 2893:Court of Appeal 2883: 2879: 2859: 2855: 2847: 2843: 2833: 2831: 2823: 2822: 2818: 2808: 2806: 2798: 2797: 2793: 2772: 2768: 2750:Sharman v Evans 2747: 2743: 2728: 2724: 2709: 2705: 2689: 2685: 2669: 2662: 2635: 2631: 2621: 2619: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2598: 2594: 2586: 2582: 2570: 2566: 2550: 2546: 2524: 2517: 2485: 2481: 2475:LawCite records 2469:303; (1976) 50 2461: 2457: 2412: 2408: 2394: 2390: 2370:Bolton v. Stone 2367: 2363: 2351: 2347: 2339: 2335: 2319: 2315: 2309:Court of Appeal 2297:Court of Appeal 2287: 2283: 2263: 2259: 2249: 2247: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2212: 2195: 2191: 2179: 2175: 2153: 2146: 2126: 2119: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2097: 2067: 2063: 2053: 2049: 2033: 2032: 2024: 2020: 2010: 2008: 1993: 1986: 1976: 1974: 1952: 1948: 1941: 1927: 1923: 1916: 1902: 1898: 1888: 1886: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1862: 1860: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1837: 1832: 1827: 1826: 1817: 1813: 1804: 1800: 1794: 1790: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1766: 1711: 1704: 1701: 1662: 1651:leaky buildings 1608:and negligence) 1594: 1588: 1585: 1574: 1565: 1561: 1554: 1500: 1495: 1438:required by law 1418: 1413: 1394:nominal damages 1390:General damages 1384:Special damages 1378:Types of damage 1343: 1337: 1319: 1309:in the case of 1268:nominal damages 1260: 1192:proximate cause 1168: 1149: 1139: 1130: 1128:Causation (law) 1124: 1112: 1073:Bolton v. Stone 1046:McHale v Watson 1034: 1028: 932: 926: 888: 844: 804: 698:By jurisdiction 398:Public nuisance 327:Rescue doctrine 310:Proximate cause 222:Negligent torts 134:Dignitary torts 89: 31: 24: 17: 12: 11: 5: 4610: 4600: 4599: 4594: 4589: 4572: 4571: 4569: 4568: 4561: 4554: 4540: 4537:Law portal 4525: 4522: 4521: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4505: 4503: 4499: 4498: 4496: 4495: 4490: 4485: 4480: 4475: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4446: 4441: 4436: 4431: 4426: 4421: 4416: 4411: 4406: 4401: 4395: 4393: 4389: 4388: 4386: 4385: 4380: 4375: 4373:Trial advocacy 4370: 4365: 4360: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4348: 4343: 4338: 4333: 4328: 4323: 4313: 4308: 4303: 4298: 4293: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4281: 4271: 4266: 4261: 4256: 4251: 4246: 4241: 4236: 4231: 4226: 4220: 4218: 4212: 4211: 4209: 4208: 4203: 4198: 4193: 4188: 4183: 4178: 4173: 4168: 4163: 4158: 4153: 4148: 4143: 4138: 4133: 4127: 4125: 4121: 4120: 4118: 4117: 4112: 4107: 4102: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4078: 4073: 4068: 4063: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4041: 4036: 4031: 4026: 4020: 4018: 4012: 4011: 4009: 4008: 4003: 4002: 4001: 3996: 3991: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3969: 3964: 3959: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3947: 3942: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3925: 3920: 3910: 3905: 3903:Ballot measure 3899: 3897: 3891: 3890: 3888: 3887: 3882: 3880:Legal treatise 3877: 3876: 3875: 3870: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3848: 3846:Letters patent 3843: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3826: 3821: 3816: 3807: 3801: 3799: 3797:Sources of law 3793: 3792: 3790: 3789: 3784: 3782:Unenforced law 3779: 3774: 3769: 3764: 3759: 3754: 3749: 3744: 3739: 3734: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3722: 3712: 3707: 3702: 3697: 3692: 3687: 3682: 3677: 3672: 3667: 3662: 3657: 3652: 3647: 3642: 3637: 3632: 3627: 3622: 3617: 3612: 3607: 3601: 3596: 3591: 3586: 3581: 3576: 3571: 3566: 3561: 3556: 3554:Commercial law 3551: 3546: 3541: 3536: 3531: 3526: 3520: 3518: 3514: 3513: 3511: 3510: 3505: 3500: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3483: 3478: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3466: 3456: 3451: 3446: 3441: 3436: 3431: 3426: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3409: 3404: 3399: 3394: 3388: 3386: 3382: 3381: 3374: 3373: 3366: 3359: 3351: 3345: 3344: 3321:, ed. (1911). 3319:Chisholm, Hugh 3313: 3312:External links 3310: 3307: 3306: 3276: 3263:10.1086/467581 3257:(2): 427–459. 3238: 3199: 3168: 3153: 3146: 3128: 3111: 3104: 3086: 3079: 3061: 3049: 3034: 3022: 3012: 2997: 2974: 2944: 2925: 2917:Article 121-3 2910: 2897: 2877: 2853: 2841: 2816: 2791: 2776:Dillon v. Legg 2766: 2741: 2722: 2703: 2683: 2660: 2629: 2604: 2592: 2580: 2564: 2544: 2515: 2479: 2455: 2426:(4): 417–418. 2406: 2388: 2361: 2345: 2333: 2313: 2281: 2257: 2246:. 18 July 2019 2231: 2189: 2173: 2144: 2117: 2111:law.uwa.edu.au 2095: 2061: 2047: 2018: 1984: 1946: 1939: 1921: 1914: 1896: 1870: 1839: 1838: 1836: 1833: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1811: 1798: 1788: 1773: 1772: 1770: 1767: 1765: 1764: 1759: 1754: 1749: 1744: 1739: 1737:Intentionality 1734: 1729: 1724: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1700: 1697: 1682:finder of fact 1661: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1621: 1615: 1609: 1596: 1595: 1568: 1566: 1559: 1553: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1544: 1532: 1531: 1525: 1519: 1499: 1496: 1494: 1491: 1417: 1414: 1412: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1397: 1387: 1380: 1379: 1339:Main article: 1336: 1333: 1318: 1315: 1259: 1256: 1167: 1164: 1138: 1135: 1126:Main article: 1123: 1120: 1111: 1108: 1098: 1097: 1078:House of Lords 1027: 1026:Breach of duty 1024: 993:In Australia, 973:House of Lords 928:Main article: 925: 922: 917: 916: 913: 910: 907: 887: 884: 846: 845: 843: 842: 835: 828: 820: 817: 816: 815: 814: 812:Law portal 799: 798: 797: 796: 783: 778: 773: 768: 760: 759: 751: 750: 749: 748: 743: 738: 733: 728: 726:European Union 723: 718: 713: 708: 700: 699: 695: 694: 693: 692: 687: 682: 677: 661: 656: 655: 654: 641: 640: 636: 635: 634: 633: 628: 623: 618: 613: 608: 607: 606: 601: 596: 583: 582: 578: 577: 576: 575: 570: 565: 560: 553: 546: 539: 534: 532:Eggshell skull 529: 524: 516: 515: 511: 510: 509: 508: 503: 498: 493: 492: 491: 481: 476: 471: 466: 458: 457: 451: 450: 449: 448: 443: 438: 436:(American law) 430: 425: 417: 416: 414:Economic torts 410: 409: 408: 407: 400: 392: 391: 385: 384: 383: 382: 377: 372: 364: 363: 352: 351: 350: 349: 344: 339: 334: 332:Duty to rescue 329: 324: 319: 312: 307: 306: 305: 295: 294: 293: 288: 283: 270: 269: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 258: 253: 243: 238: 233: 225: 224: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 208: 203: 198: 190: 185: 180: 175: 174: 173: 163: 158: 157: 156: 153: 145: 137: 136: 130: 129: 128: 127: 122: 121: 120: 115: 102: 101: 100:Property torts 97: 96: 95: 94: 87: 82: 77: 69: 68: 62: 61: 51: 50: 44: 43: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4609: 4598: 4595: 4593: 4590: 4588: 4585: 4584: 4582: 4567: 4566: 4562: 4560: 4559: 4555: 4553: 4552: 4541: 4539: 4538: 4533: 4527: 4526: 4523: 4515: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4507: 4506: 4504: 4500: 4494: 4491: 4489: 4486: 4484: 4481: 4479: 4476: 4474: 4471: 4467: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4459: 4455: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4447: 4445: 4442: 4440: 4437: 4435: 4432: 4430: 4427: 4425: 4422: 4420: 4419:Civil society 4417: 4415: 4412: 4410: 4407: 4405: 4402: 4400: 4397: 4396: 4394: 4390: 4384: 4381: 4379: 4378:Trier of fact 4376: 4374: 4371: 4369: 4366: 4364: 4361: 4359: 4356: 4352: 4349: 4347: 4344: 4342: 4339: 4337: 4334: 4332: 4329: 4327: 4324: 4322: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4314: 4312: 4309: 4307: 4304: 4302: 4299: 4297: 4294: 4292: 4289: 4285: 4282: 4280: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4272: 4270: 4267: 4265: 4264:Legal opinion 4262: 4260: 4257: 4255: 4252: 4250: 4247: 4245: 4244:Court-martial 4242: 4240: 4237: 4235: 4232: 4230: 4227: 4225: 4222: 4221: 4219: 4217: 4216:Jurisprudence 4213: 4207: 4204: 4202: 4199: 4197: 4194: 4192: 4189: 4187: 4184: 4182: 4179: 4177: 4174: 4172: 4169: 4167: 4164: 4162: 4159: 4157: 4154: 4152: 4149: 4147: 4144: 4142: 4139: 4137: 4134: 4132: 4129: 4128: 4126: 4122: 4116: 4113: 4111: 4108: 4106: 4105:Statutory law 4103: 4101: 4100:Socialist law 4098: 4094: 4093:Byzantine law 4091: 4090: 4089: 4086: 4082: 4079: 4077: 4074: 4072: 4069: 4067: 4064: 4062: 4059: 4055: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044:Religious law 4042: 4040: 4037: 4035: 4032: 4030: 4027: 4025: 4022: 4021: 4019: 4017: 4016:Legal systems 4013: 4007: 4004: 4000: 3997: 3995: 3992: 3990: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984:Statutory law 3982: 3978: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3970: 3968: 3965: 3963: 3960: 3958: 3955: 3951: 3948: 3946: 3943: 3941: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3933: 3929: 3926: 3924: 3921: 3919: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3911: 3909: 3906: 3904: 3901: 3900: 3898: 3896: 3892: 3886: 3883: 3881: 3878: 3874: 3871: 3869: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3861: 3857: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3849: 3847: 3844: 3842: 3839: 3835: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3827: 3825: 3822: 3820: 3817: 3815: 3814:Statutory law 3811: 3808: 3806: 3803: 3802: 3800: 3798: 3794: 3788: 3785: 3783: 3780: 3778: 3775: 3773: 3772:Transport law 3770: 3768: 3765: 3763: 3760: 3758: 3755: 3753: 3750: 3748: 3745: 3743: 3740: 3738: 3735: 3733: 3730: 3726: 3723: 3721: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3713: 3711: 3708: 3706: 3703: 3701: 3698: 3696: 3693: 3691: 3690:Legal fiction 3688: 3686: 3683: 3681: 3678: 3676: 3673: 3671: 3668: 3666: 3663: 3661: 3658: 3656: 3653: 3651: 3648: 3646: 3643: 3641: 3638: 3636: 3633: 3631: 3628: 3626: 3623: 3621: 3620:Financial law 3618: 3616: 3613: 3611: 3608: 3605: 3602: 3600: 3597: 3595: 3592: 3590: 3587: 3585: 3582: 3580: 3579:Corporate law 3577: 3575: 3572: 3570: 3567: 3565: 3562: 3560: 3557: 3555: 3552: 3550: 3547: 3545: 3542: 3540: 3537: 3535: 3532: 3530: 3527: 3525: 3522: 3521: 3519: 3515: 3509: 3506: 3504: 3503:Statutory law 3501: 3499: 3496: 3492: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3484: 3482: 3479: 3477: 3474: 3470: 3467: 3465: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3457: 3455: 3452: 3450: 3447: 3445: 3442: 3440: 3437: 3435: 3432: 3430: 3427: 3425: 3422: 3418: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3410: 3408: 3405: 3403: 3400: 3398: 3395: 3393: 3390: 3389: 3387: 3385:Core subjects 3383: 3379: 3372: 3367: 3365: 3360: 3358: 3353: 3352: 3349: 3342: 3338: 3332: 3331: 3325: 3320: 3316: 3315: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3280: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3245: 3243: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3203: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3172: 3164: 3157: 3149: 3147:0-408-71770-X 3143: 3139: 3132: 3124: 3123: 3115: 3107: 3105:0-408-71686-X 3101: 3097: 3090: 3082: 3080:9781862873001 3076: 3072: 3065: 3058: 3053: 3046: 3041: 3039: 3031: 3026: 3016: 3008: 3001: 2986:. p. 320 2985: 2978: 2962: 2955: 2948: 2940: 2936: 2929: 2922: 2921: 2914: 2907: 2901: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2881: 2874: 2870: 2867:, (1981) 150 2866: 2862: 2857: 2850: 2845: 2830: 2826: 2820: 2805: 2801: 2795: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2778: 2777: 2770: 2763: 2759: 2756:, (1977) 138 2755: 2751: 2745: 2737: 2733: 2726: 2718: 2714: 2707: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2687: 2680: 2679:Supreme Court 2676: 2672: 2667: 2665: 2657: 2656:Privy Council 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2639: 2633: 2618: 2614: 2608: 2601: 2596: 2589: 2584: 2577: 2573: 2568: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2552:Wallace v Kam 2548: 2541: 2537: 2534:, (1991) 171 2533: 2529: 2528: 2522: 2520: 2512: 2508: 2505:, (2012) 246 2504: 2500: 2497:(Australia); 2496: 2492: 2488: 2483: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2459: 2451: 2447: 2442: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2410: 2403: 2399: 2398: 2392: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2371: 2365: 2358: 2354: 2349: 2342: 2337: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2285: 2278: 2274: 2271:, (1980) 146 2270: 2266: 2261: 2245: 2244:IPSA LOQUITUR 2241: 2235: 2228: 2224: 2221:, (2005) 222 2220: 2216: 2210: 2206: 2203:, (2010) 241 2202: 2198: 2193: 2186: 2182: 2177: 2170: 2166: 2163:, (1984) 155 2162: 2158: 2157: 2151: 2149: 2141: 2137: 2134:, (2002) 211 2133: 2129: 2124: 2122: 2112: 2105: 2099: 2092: 2091:Privy Council 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2071: 2065: 2058: 2057: 2051: 2043: 2037: 2029: 2022: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1991: 1989: 1973: 1972:10.18060/3628 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1950: 1942: 1940:9780199257119 1936: 1932: 1925: 1917: 1911: 1907: 1900: 1884: 1880: 1874: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1844: 1840: 1821: 1815: 1808: 1802: 1792: 1785: 1778: 1774: 1763: 1760: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1750: 1748: 1745: 1743: 1740: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1730: 1728: 1725: 1723: 1720: 1719: 1714: 1708: 1703: 1696: 1694: 1693: 1686: 1683: 1678: 1676: 1672: 1667: 1660:United States 1652: 1649: 1648: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1619: 1616: 1613: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1600: 1599: 1592: 1582: 1578: 1572: 1569:This section 1567: 1558: 1557: 1545: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1537: 1529: 1526: 1524: 1520: 1517: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1509: 1505: 1490: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1458: 1453: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1404: 1401: 1398: 1395: 1391: 1388: 1385: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1365: 1360: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1342: 1332: 1330: 1325: 1323: 1314: 1312: 1306: 1303: 1297: 1294: 1290: 1287: 1286:economic loss 1282: 1280: 1275: 1271: 1269: 1263: 1255: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1212: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1198: 1193: 1189: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1163: 1161: 1156: 1154: 1148: 1144: 1134: 1129: 1119: 1117: 1107: 1106: 1102: 1095: 1094: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1086: 1085: 1079: 1076:(1951), the 1075: 1074: 1068: 1067: 1062: 1057: 1053: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1040: 1033: 1023: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1004: 1002: 1001: 996: 991: 988: 987: 981: 978: 974: 969: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 950:Privy Council 947: 943: 942: 936: 931: 921: 914: 911: 908: 905: 901: 897: 896: 895: 893: 883: 881: 876: 872: 868: 863: 861: 860: 856: 852: 841: 836: 834: 829: 827: 822: 821: 819: 818: 813: 808: 803: 802: 801: 800: 795: 791: 787: 784: 782: 779: 777: 774: 772: 769: 767: 764: 763: 762: 761: 757: 753: 752: 747: 746:United States 744: 742: 739: 737: 734: 732: 729: 727: 724: 722: 719: 717: 714: 712: 709: 707: 704: 703: 702: 701: 697: 696: 691: 688: 686: 683: 681: 678: 674: 670: 665: 662: 660: 657: 653: 650: 649: 648: 645: 644: 643: 642: 638: 637: 632: 629: 627: 624: 622: 619: 617: 614: 612: 609: 605: 602: 600: 597: 595: 592: 591: 590: 587: 586: 585: 584: 580: 579: 574: 571: 569: 566: 564: 561: 559: 558: 554: 552: 551: 547: 545: 544: 540: 538: 535: 533: 530: 528: 525: 523: 520: 519: 518: 517: 513: 512: 507: 504: 502: 499: 497: 494: 490: 487: 486: 485: 482: 480: 477: 475: 472: 470: 467: 465: 462: 461: 460: 459: 456: 453: 452: 447: 444: 442: 439: 434: 431: 429: 426: 424: 421: 420: 419: 418: 415: 412: 411: 406: 405: 401: 399: 396: 395: 394: 393: 390: 387: 386: 381: 378: 376: 373: 371: 368: 367: 366: 365: 361: 357: 354: 353: 348: 345: 343: 340: 338: 335: 333: 330: 328: 325: 323: 320: 318: 317: 313: 311: 308: 304: 301: 300: 299: 296: 292: 289: 287: 284: 282: 279: 278: 277: 274: 273: 272: 271: 268: 265: 264: 257: 254: 252: 249: 248: 247: 244: 242: 239: 237: 234: 232: 229: 228: 227: 226: 223: 220: 219: 212: 209: 207: 204: 202: 199: 197: 194: 193: 192:Sexual torts 191: 189: 186: 184: 181: 179: 176: 172: 169: 168: 167: 164: 162: 159: 154: 151: 150: 149: 146: 144: 143:Appropriation 141: 140: 139: 138: 135: 132: 131: 126: 123: 119: 116: 114: 111: 110: 109: 106: 105: 104: 103: 99: 98: 92: 88: 86: 83: 81: 78: 76: 73: 72: 71: 70: 67: 64: 63: 58: 53: 52: 49: 46: 45: 41: 37: 36: 33: 29: 22: 4563: 4556: 4542: 4528: 4301:Jurisdiction 4269:Legal remedy 4224:Adjudication 4124:Legal theory 3962:Ratification 3957:Promulgation 3928:Proclamation 3908:Codification 3841:Human rights 3829:Divine right 3819:Constitution 3787:Women in law 3705:Military law 3700:Marriage law 3695:Maritime law 3594:Election law 3534:Aviation law 3524:Abortion law 3476:Property law 3412:Criminal law 3340: 3336: 3328: 3299:22 September 3297:. Retrieved 3293: 3289: 3279: 3254: 3250: 3219:(1): 72–79. 3216: 3212: 3202: 3192:22 September 3190:. Retrieved 3185: 3181: 3171: 3162: 3156: 3137: 3131: 3120: 3114: 3095: 3089: 3070: 3064: 3056: 3052: 3044: 3029: 3025: 3015: 3006: 3000: 2988:. Retrieved 2977: 2965:. Retrieved 2960: 2947: 2934: 2928: 2919: 2913: 2905: 2900: 2884: 2880: 2875:(Australia). 2860: 2856: 2848: 2844: 2832:. Retrieved 2828: 2819: 2807:. Retrieved 2803: 2794: 2780: 2774: 2769: 2764:(Australia). 2749: 2744: 2735: 2731: 2725: 2716: 2712: 2706: 2701:(Australia). 2690: 2686: 2670: 2636: 2632: 2620:. Retrieved 2616: 2607: 2599: 2595: 2587: 2583: 2571: 2567: 2562:(Australia). 2551: 2547: 2542:(Australia). 2525: 2513:(Australia); 2498: 2486: 2482: 2462: 2458: 2423: 2419: 2409: 2401: 2395: 2391: 2386:(Australia). 2375: 2368: 2364: 2352: 2348: 2340: 2336: 2331:(Australia). 2320: 2316: 2300: 2288: 2284: 2279:(Australia). 2264: 2260: 2248:. Retrieved 2243: 2234: 2229:(Australia). 2214: 2211:(Australia); 2196: 2192: 2180: 2176: 2171:(Australia). 2154: 2142:(Australia). 2127: 2110: 2098: 2085:, (1935) 54 2068: 2064: 2054: 2050: 2027: 2021: 2011:22 September 2009:. Retrieved 2004: 2000: 1977:22 September 1975:. Retrieved 1963: 1959: 1949: 1930: 1924: 1905: 1899: 1887:. Retrieved 1882: 1879:"Negligence" 1873: 1861:. Retrieved 1857:the original 1852: 1849:"Negligence" 1843: 1814: 1801: 1791: 1777: 1722:Carelessness 1690: 1687: 1679: 1669:by way of a 1663: 1650: 1635:2 NZLR 234; 1631:1 NZLR 553; 1627:1 NZLR 394; 1586: 1575:Please help 1570: 1533: 1516:duty of care 1507: 1501: 1475:carelessness 1460: 1454: 1419: 1372: 1368: 1361: 1346: 1344: 1328: 1326: 1321: 1320: 1310: 1307: 1298: 1291: 1283: 1276: 1272: 1264: 1261: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1237: 1225: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1195: 1185: 1157: 1150: 1131: 1113: 1100: 1099: 1091: 1082: 1071: 1064: 1060: 1058: 1054: 1049: 1045: 1043: 1035: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1005: 998: 994: 992: 984: 982: 970: 964:precluded a 954:Commonwealth 939: 938:The case of 937: 933: 930:Duty of care 924:Duty of care 918: 889: 875:duty of care 870: 864: 858: 857: 850: 849: 771:Criminal law 690:Class action 555: 548: 541: 484:Self-defense 402: 380:Deep pockets 314: 276:Duty of care 221: 38:Part of the 32: 4473:Legislature 4404:Bureaucracy 4201:Rule of man 4196:Rule of law 4171:Libertarian 4034:Chinese law 3935:Legislation 3885:Regulations 3873:Law reports 3851:Natural law 3747:Reparations 3742:Refugee law 3665:Jurimetrics 3606:(Media law) 3544:Banking law 3539:Amnesty law 3517:Disciplines 3454:Private law 3337:Buick Motor 1966:(1): 1–20. 1742:Malpractice 1639:1 NZLR 76; 1552:New Zealand 1487:advertently 1357:culpability 1327:Negligence 1188:Cardozo, J. 966:contractual 859:negligentia 647:Tort reform 281:Trespassers 246:Malpractice 241:Entrustment 161:False light 4581:Categories 4466:Law school 4346:Prosecutor 4284:Magistrate 4071:Jewish law 4029:Common law 3950:Rulemaking 3945:Regulation 3895:Law making 3834:Divine law 3810:Legal code 3757:Sports law 3680:Law of war 3630:Health law 3615:Family law 3599:Energy law 3549:Bankruptcy 3486:Punishment 3481:Public law 2963:. İstanbul 2920:Code Pénal 2873:High Court 2762:High Court 2699:High Court 2622:19 January 2560:High Court 2540:High Court 2511:High Court 2495:High Court 2465:(1976) 10 2384:High Court 2343:1 WLR 1304 2329:High Court 2277:High Court 2250:23 October 2227:High Court 2209:High Court 2169:High Court 2140:High Court 1830:References 1713:Law portal 1620:1 NZLR 360 1606:defamation 1579:by adding 1493:Common law 1483:aggravated 1479:aggravated 1434:İhmali suç 1302:California 1279:defamation 1252:Tame v NSW 1141:See also: 1030:See also: 977:Lord Atkin 898:duty: the 892:"elements" 871:negligence 851:Negligence 756:common law 659:Quasi-tort 611:Injunction 604:Incidental 423:Conspiracy 148:Defamation 125:Conversion 40:common law 4444:Judiciary 4439:Executive 4414:The bench 4351:Solicitor 4326:Barrister 4206:Sociology 4191:Pseudolaw 4131:Anarchist 4088:Roman law 4076:Parsi law 4061:Hindu law 4049:Canon law 4024:Civil law 3977:Concordat 3868:Precedent 3777:Trust law 3752:Space law 3589:Drugs law 3459:Procedure 3397:Civil law 3271:153380489 2748:See, eg, 2738:(3): 341. 2576:s 5d 2357:s 21 2213:see also 2185:s 32 2036:cite book 2007:(4): 1671 1835:Citations 1786:tort law. 1666:plaintiff 1528:Causation 1416:Civil law 1411:Worldwide 1206:conductor 1160:insurance 1122:Causation 904:plaintiff 900:defendant 766:Contracts 706:Australia 514:Liability 474:Necessity 362:liability 286:Licensees 206:Seduction 4587:Tort law 4551:Category 4493:Tribunal 4478:Military 4321:Attorney 4291:Judgment 4151:Feminist 4066:Jain law 3863:Case law 3584:Cyberlaw 3491:Corporal 3469:Criminal 3439:Evidence 3429:Doctrine 3407:Contract 3125:: 60–61. 2834:12 April 2809:12 April 2650:617; 2 2450:17106507 1796:pocket." 1784:American 1752:Mens rea 1699:See also 1671:demurrer 1589:May 2024 1462:mens rea 1182:in 1895. 975:, where 781:Property 776:Evidence 626:Replevin 594:Punitive 581:Remedies 455:Defences 389:Nuisance 360:absolute 291:Invitees 118:chattels 108:Trespass 48:Tort law 4565:Outline 4502:History 4409:The bar 4383:Verdict 4331:Counsel 4311:Justice 4166:History 3989:Statute 3805:Charter 3767:Tax law 3715:Probate 3233:1599201 2990:21 June 2967:21 June 2441:1618741 1906:Law 101 1889:12 June 1863:24 July 1757:Neglect 1692:de novo 1442:Turkish 1430:Turkish 1420:In the 1406:insult. 1341:Damages 1335:Damages 1281:case). 1202:railway 962:privity 880:damages 794:estates 621:Detinue 616:Tracing 599:Special 589:Damages 469:Consent 256:medical 152:Slander 80:Battery 75:Assault 57:Outline 21:neglect 4483:Police 4454:Agency 4336:Lawyer 4081:Sharia 3972:Treaty 3967:Repeal 3913:Decree 3824:Custom 3720:Estate 3670:Labour 3434:Equity 3269: 3231: 3144: 3102: 3077: 2782:Molien 2719:: 228. 2652:All ER 2574:(NSW) 2448: 2438: 2355:(Qld) 2183:(NSW) 2059:AC 532 1937: 1912: 1471:intent 1446:Taksir 1329:per se 1258:Injury 1250:, and 1232:Sydney 1153:liable 792:, and 790:trusts 754:Other 741:Taiwan 711:Canada 664:Delict 631:Trover 356:Strict 42:series 4558:Index 4424:Court 4368:Trial 4274:Judge 4115:Yassa 3918:Edict 3464:Civil 3417:Crime 3267:S2CID 3229:JSTOR 3188:: 515 2957:(PDF) 2939:CEDAM 2923:(CP). 2887: 2871:402, 2863: 2760:563, 2752: 2693: 2673: 2642: 2554: 2538:506, 2530: 2509:182, 2501: 2489: 2378: 2323: 2303: 2291: 2267: 2217: 2199: 2167:549, 2159: 2138:317, 2130: 2107:(PDF) 2073: 1769:Notes 1498:India 1353:Latin 1211:train 946:fault 869:law, 786:Wills 758:areas 736:Japan 731:India 716:China 669:civil 441:Fraud 251:legal 155:Libel 4306:Jury 4254:Fiqh 4110:Xeer 3508:Tort 3424:Deed 3339:and 3301:2017 3194:2017 3142:ISBN 3100:ISBN 3075:ISBN 2992:2024 2969:2024 2836:2020 2811:2020 2773:See 2624:2024 2578:(2). 2473:720 2471:ALJR 2446:PMID 2252:2019 2225:44, 2207:60, 2081:85; 2042:link 2013:2017 1979:2017 1935:ISBN 1910:ISBN 1891:2011 1865:2017 1455:The 1450:care 1145:and 867:tort 855:Lat. 671:and 358:and 113:land 3378:Law 3259:doi 3221:doi 3047:at 2869:CLR 2784:v. 2758:CLR 2646:, 2536:CLR 2507:CLR 2467:ALR 2436:PMC 2428:doi 2273:CLR 2223:CLR 2205:CLR 2165:CLR 2136:CLR 2087:CLR 2077:, 1968:doi 1059:In 4583:: 3812:/ 3327:. 3294:74 3292:. 3288:. 3265:. 3253:. 3241:^ 3227:. 3217:45 3215:. 3211:. 3186:87 3184:. 3180:. 3037:^ 2959:. 2891:, 2827:. 2802:. 2736:37 2734:. 2717:30 2715:. 2697:, 2677:, 2663:^ 2648:AC 2615:. 2558:, 2518:^ 2493:, 2444:. 2434:. 2424:19 2422:. 2418:. 2382:, 2307:, 2295:, 2242:. 2147:^ 2120:^ 2109:. 2079:AC 2038:}} 2034:{{ 2005:35 2003:. 1999:. 1987:^ 1964:37 1962:. 1958:. 1881:. 1851:. 1677:. 1514:A 1452:. 1444:: 1432:: 1313:. 1254:. 1246:, 1118:. 1103:: 1052:. 1022:. 788:, 3370:e 3363:t 3356:v 3343:. 3303:. 3273:. 3261:: 3255:6 3235:. 3223:: 3196:. 3150:. 3108:. 3083:. 2994:. 2971:. 2838:. 2813:. 2626:. 2477:. 2452:. 2430:: 2372:, 2359:. 2254:. 2187:. 2115:. 2113:. 2044:) 2015:. 1981:. 1970:: 1943:. 1918:. 1893:. 1867:. 1809:. 1591:) 1587:( 1583:. 1573:. 1396:. 1351:( 853:( 839:e 832:t 825:v 675:) 59:) 55:( 30:. 23:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.